Hydrohistorian
← My Water · Print / save as PDF
ROCKY HILL SEEPAGE AND OVERFLOW DITCH
Structure dossier · WDID 2700543 · 1 · CARNERO CREEK · DWR record
Where this page's figures come from
Generated 2026-08-27 22:07 by Hydrohistorian. Sources: DWR HydroBase snapshot HydroBase_CO_20260707 (history) + CDSS REST (current), USGS NWIS cross-checks. Engine v0.5.0 (2deb1d7) — every figure regenerates from this named code version and data image.
Where it sits
Location as DWR records it. Faint dots are the neighbouring water; click any to open it.
Which of its rights are out of priority?
Not computable for this structure: this structure is not on the modelled flow network, so no reference gage can honestly stand in for it.
Where it sits in line
Priority 1891-11-17 — 199th most senior of the 1304 structures with decreed rights in this water districtDWR's administrative subdivision of a river basin; the unit calls are usually stated in..
Under prior appropriationColorado's rule for sharing water: first in time, first in right. Age decides, not proximity or need., everything ahead of it in this line is satisfied in full before it receives any water. Immediately ahead: LATERAL 7-A SEPG OVFL D (1891-11-17). Immediately behind: W1359 WELL NO 01 (1911-12-31).
Decreed rights (1)
| Admin noDWR's numeric encoding of a water right's seniority. Smaller is more senior; the integer part counts days from 1849-12-31 to the date that ranks the right. | AppropriatedWhen water was first put to beneficial use. It sets seniority unless a prior adjudication date is later. | AdjudicatedWhen the water court confirmed the right. A use decreed in 1975 was not a decreed use in 1955, however old the appropriation is. | AbsoluteA right actually put to use, as opposed to conditional -- a placeholder for a use not yet made. | ConditionalA right reserving a place in line for a use not yet made; it must be diligently pursued or it lapses. | Units | UsesWhat the court said this water may be used for -- irrigation, municipal supply, augmentation and so on. | Case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22575.15296 | 1891-11-17 | 1933-04-11 | 44.6 | 0.0 | C | IRR | 1 |
Legal record & documents
3 decreed actions on record across
2 court cases:
17CW3030, 04/11/1933.
Every case, dated
| Case | Actions | Latest adjudication | Types |
|---|---|---|---|
17CW3030 | 2 | 1933-04-11 | S |
04/11/1933 | 1 | 1933-04-11 | S |
DWR's own records for this structure: net amounts · transactions & adjudication history · scanned decrees (search a case number there for the imaged document). On this site: the district's full legal picture →
Recorded use (last 15 years on record)
In a median year this structure has a recorded diversion of 1,098 AF. Its most recent year on record, 2025, came in at 0 AF — 0% of that, and 1st lowest of the 15 years with a recorded volume.
| Year | Diverted (AFA volume: one acre covered a foot deep, about 326,000 gallons -- roughly a suburban household's outdoor use for a year.) | Compared with its own record | Days recorded | Peak (cfs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 604 | 7th lowest of 15 · 55% of median | 78 | 15.0 |
| 1999 | 1,457 | 9th lowest of 15 · 133% of median | 125 | 20.0 |
| 2000 | 131 | 4th lowest of 15 · 12% of median | 41 | 4.0 |
| 2001 | 3,221 | 14th lowest of 15 · 293% of median | 189 | 120.0 |
| 2002 | 54 | 2nd lowest of 15 · 5% of median | 19 | 3.0 |
| 2004 | 1,571 | 11th lowest of 15 · 143% of median | 69 | 40.0 |
| 2005 | 1,098 | 8th lowest of 15 · 100% of median | 100 | 30.0 |
| 2006 | 581 | 6th lowest of 15 · 53% of median | 111 | 15.0 |
| 2007 | 4,447 | 15th lowest of 15 · 405% of median | 245 | 43.0 |
| 2008 | 2,098 | 13th lowest of 15 · 191% of median | 230 | 12.6 |
| 2009 | 1,891 | 12th lowest of 15 · 172% of median | 159 | 19.2 |
| 2010 | 1,475 | 10th lowest of 15 · 134% of median | 203 | 16.6 |
| 2023 | 348 | 5th lowest of 15 · 32% of median | 70 | 12.9 |
| 2024 | 79 | 3rd lowest of 15 · 7% of median | 26 | 3.6 |
| 2025 | 0 | 1st lowest of 15 · 0% of median | 28 | 0.0 |
Trends for this structure
Recorded use shows no clear trend over its last 15 recorded years — which is itself worth knowing.
How good is our record of it?
Grade B (7/10 points) — the components below are the finding; the letter alone is not.
The rubric, component by component
| Check | State | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| identity | complete | name, type, and water source all on file |
| decreed rights | on file | 1 right(s), seniority decoded |
| diversion record | present | 1983 measured days; currency unknown (no data-coverage date to compare against) |
| record continuity | sparse | 28% of the irrigation seasons in 1992-2025 carry measured days |
| published-record stability | stable | no upstream revisions recorded against this structure |
Advisory reading aid on public data — not an administrative or legal conclusion, not a title opinion, and not a substitute for DWR administration or an engineer's analysis. Methodology review status is disclosed at hydrohistorian's basin pages.